State v. Escobar, 2021 Ohio 4001

Background

Stephen Escobar was charged in two separate theft-by-deception incidents (one for $435, one for $400/$455) involving alleged offer-to-sell iPhones; he pled not guilty and proceeded to bench trials.
Defense sought discovery and moved to compel a complete multi-page photo lineup after the state produced only one of eight pages and said no others were available. The court declined a sanction and overruled the motion to compel.
On the morning of trial, Escobar asked for a jury trial; defense counsel had not previously filed a jury demand and the court denied the late request.
A certified legal intern (supervised by counsel) conducted opening, cross-examination, and closing in the first bench trial; after critical comments by the court about defense strategy the judge barred the intern from leading the second trial, requiring the supervising attorney to conduct it.
Each trial produced in-court identifications by the victims who testified they met Escobar and that he left with the phone and cash; the court found Escobar guilty in both bench trials.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not timely demanding a jury	Counsel’s choice to proceed with bench trial was reasonable and no prejudice shown	Failure to inform/file deprived Escobar of right to a jury trial	Rejected — no deficient prejudice shown under Strickland; choice to bench trial is within reasonable representation and outcome not shown to be different
Whether denial of the legal intern’s lead role deprived Escobar of Sixth Amendment counsel of choice	Escobar retained and was represented by a licensed public defender throughout; intern was supervised	Removing the intern denied Escobar his choice of counsel and thereby his Sixth Amendment right	Rejected — licensed counsel represented Escobar throughout; requiring supervising attorney to lead did not deny right to counsel
Whether judicial hostility required reversal for bias / due process violation	Court’s remarks reflected bias making fair adjudication impossible	Court’s comments, though critical, arose from proceedings and rulings were supported by the record	Rejected — remarks did not demonstrate extrajudicial bias; presumption of impartiality not overcome
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State’s argument: victims credibly identified Escobar; in-court IDs and testimony supported convictions	Defense argued misidentification, suggestive identification procedures, and missing lineup/bank video undermined certainty	Rejected — credibility is for trier of fact; testimony supported verdicts and no manifest miscarriage of justice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (criticisms of counsel ordinarily do not establish judicial bias unless extrajudicial sources or extreme antagonism shown)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (biased judge denies due process; new trial is the remedy)
State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 140 (2010) (remedy for demonstrated judicial bias is a new trial)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (reversal for manifest weight reserved for exceptional cases)
State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (credibility determinations rest with the trier of fact)
Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5 (2010) (deference to trial court credibility findings)